Skip to main content

This better not be some 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea shit, man.

Underwater
(2020)

(SPOILERS) There’s no shame in a quality B-movie, or in an Alien rip-off done well. But it’s nevertheless going to need that something extra to make it truly memorable in its own right. Underwater, despite being scuppered at the box office, is an entirely respectable entry in both those arenas from director William Eubank, but like the recent Life (which, in fairness, had an ending that very nearly elevated it to the truly memorable), it can’t quite go that extra mile, or summon that much needed sliver of inspiration to set it apart.

Written by Brian Duffield (who has turned director with forthcoming exploding high schooler flick Spontaneous) and Adam Cozad, Underwater mines the oft-explored subaquatic menace for material, going where Leviathan and Deepstar Six dredged up variable quantities and qualities of sinister marine life before. Here, a drilling operation in the Mariana Trench unleashes deadly terror, devastating the main mining station in the first five minutes and requiring six solitary survivors to try and make it to the surface – by walking across the ocean floor in order to access working escape pods – while dodging a menace that has taken a disliking to all things, well, not Cthulhu-spawned, by the looks of it.

Perhaps the biggest compliment you can pay the picture is that it’s at its most impressive during the opening stages, when there isn’t even a whiff of savage sea creatures. The initial breach of the station is a powerhouse in disaster movie escalation, as Kristen Stewart's Norah struggles to close hatches and make a bid for relative safety with a motley collection of stragglers. Pressure at such depths is the biggest enemy, as Mamoudou Athie discovers – it perhaps isn’t such a retro feature of the picture to relish that the African-American character is the first of the six to meet a grisly end – but anything involving closed spaces, claustrophobia and submergence comes a close second.

It’s also to Eubank’s credit that you’re very rarely conscious of Underwater being shot mostly dry-for-wet. Occasionally, he loses his sure grip on the rudder, with fairly ho-hum establishing shots and a sequence where Norah and Captain Lucien (Vincent Cassel) become separated from couple Emily (Jessica Henwick) and Liam (John Gallagher Jr); this descends into a flurry of confused rendering and action geography (and evidently not intentionally so; it isn’t clear what is happening and to whom). Mostly, though, he’s able to ensure the charted course remains edge-of-the-seat.

The real problem, when it arises, is that the aquatic predators just aren’t very interesting or unique; there was probably more potential when the survivors were wondering if they might be up against a variety of sinister algae than the subsequent reveal that furious fish folk are after them. It’s also to Underwater’s detriment that Eubank decided (after the fact) that he was going to have a Lovecraftian uber-creature calling the shots on rocking the drilling joint. We’ve seen this variant design-wise so many times in the past few years that any sensible director would swear off going there, quite beside the fact that the bigger monster very rarely results in greater tension or higher stakes; more commonly, it leads to narrative burnout.

In terms of the cast, Stewart does well in the lead role, although I wouldn’t overstate the character integrity involved. The establishing of her pessimistic outlook on life, as opposed to her ex’s sunny side up viewpoint, is little more than a glib wrap around, one that just about gives motive to her ensuring those with something to live for – Emily and Liam – make it to the surface, but does nothing to make us invest in their safety (which is crucial in these movies).

Henwick provides Emily with a surplus of nervous energy, but a discussion about pet pooches doesn’t really ingrain her on the mind (or perhaps it does, since I remembered it), while Gallagher Jr makes flat-out zero impression, meaning his presence as a dead weight throughout (they’re stuck dragging his unconscious form around) is simply a chore. Cassel fares much better, but the calls of cliché require the captain to fall. Ditto for the wise-cracking Hudson type (TJ Miller, whose very presence destroys the integrity of the entire movie, according to some of Cancel Culture’s most ardent devotees, but they’d probably be best not watching any media at all, since some suspect party will inevitably be involved in its production somewhere along the line, even if they’re only allegedly suspect).

Like her former co-star Robert Pattison, Stewart has, until recently, charted a commendably marquee-shunning post-Twilight career path, seeking out indie flavours and interesting directors. This and Charlie’s Angels appear to be a conscious break with that. In particular, she seems set on andro chic branding herself here, frequently stripping down to her designer skimpies (surely in consort with Eubank, as she has enough sway over her career to call the shots in that regard). It’s the movie’s equivalent of Ripley cheesecake, only self-engineered. For little obvious reward, it seems, as on the evidence of this and Angels, no one’s much interested in her as a movie star. Which may not be a bad thing; Stewart should probably concentrate on the character path, only taking blockbuster roles when she really needs to.

As for Eubank, regardless of Underwater’s box office, it represents an effective calling card. He and cinematographer Bojan Bazelli (frequent collaborator with Gore Verbinski) have created a palpable environment of dank, dripping sets and claustrophobic intensity. Lovely pressure suit designs too. Give him a good screenplay (probably not one penned with his brother) and he’ll comfortably rise into the big leagues.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979)
Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

The protocol actually says that most Tersies will say this has to be a dream.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)
(SPOILERS) The Wachowski siblings’ wildly patchy career continues apace. They bespoiled a great thing with The Matrix sequels (I liked the first, not the second), misfired with Speed Racer (bubble-gum visuals aside, hijinks and comedy ain’t their forte) and recently delivered the Marmite Sense8 for Netflix (I was somewhere in between on it). Their only slam-dunk since The Matrix put them on the movie map is Cloud Atlas, and even that’s a case of rising above its limitations (mostly prosthetic-based). Jupiter Ascending, their latest cinema outing and first stab at space opera, elevates their lesser works by default, however. It manages to be tone deaf in all the areas that count, and sadly fetches up at the bottom of their filmography pile.

This is a case where the roundly damning verdicts have sadly been largely on the ball. What’s most baffling about the picture is that, after a reasonably engaging set-up, it determinedly bores the pants off you. I haven’t enco…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991)
(SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…